The Great Deception

Richard North and Christopher Booker’s masterly history of the European Project has been made available as a free PDF by North.

This is huge news. If you haven’t read it, you (probably) don’t know the first thing about what the EU is, where it came from, and why it can’t – or won’t – ever be “reformed”. I always urge everyone to read it if they can get a hold of a copy. Now everyone can.

[EDIT: Updated link. North noticed he'd actually posted the original, pre-Constitutional Convention, edition. The second edition, with two extra chapters covering 2003-2005, is now available. My hardback copy is of the first, so I'm interested to see what they say myself.]

13 Comments

Thanks for the link Sam. I haven’t read it, but I actually do know what the EU is and where it came from etc etc. I voted NO to remaining in the “Common Market” the last time we got a chance. And will iDave keep his promise of an in/out vote? Fat chance!

Ta for the comp Sam. See this is why I keep referring to the EU as a bunch of Gangsters. All you needed to do to get a Common Market going was to remove the Tariff barriers to free trade, Simples!

But that was never the point (and as a matter of fact we still don’t have a Common Market). Now we have a Flag and an Anthem and an unelected President; finances that haven’t been audited in 17 years, which would put a normal commercial company into Receivership let alone an organisation purporting to manage the well-being of 28 supposedly proud and independent Nations.

Then there is the fraud, corruption and backhanders going off in all directions ( can’t complain though, my subsidies for my North Sea Olive Grove Company come in regular as clockwork on the first of the month). And when this all ends in an almighty car crash, like it has with the Euro, the answer is not let’s sit down and rethink this whole project here, no the answer is… Ever closer (Political) Union!

It has never been about us little people, it has always been about the Elite. And we are all going to Hell in a handcart! The Elite just a little bit slower… have you seen their pensions?

Alas Julie – the only vote was in 1975 and people were told they were just voting for “free trade” with the “Common Market”.

Anyone who suggested there might be a plan for a European Union was denounced as “paranoid”.

It is depressing (incredibly so) that in spite of the work of Christopher Booker and Richard North (and others) politicians still think the EU can be “reformed”.

Mr David Cameron you are mistaken – radically mistaken. The EU is about “ever greater union” (the “Project” has always been that), your idea that this is just a pose is wrong. They really mean this – it is the one thing that European politicians are NOT cynical about.

I don’t believe the Eu can be reformed either but is it the root cause of our woes? No, it isn’t. Every single nasty policy the EU would impose on us would be imposed whether we were in or out by every significant political party in the UK. Paul, you think leaving will change anything? We are, as I said earlier, talking cause and effect. It is progressive politics that made the EU not the other way round. Can it be reformed? Absolutely. Probable not for the better. But then I’m unlikely to be around for that so I couldn’t give a fuck.

No, Nick, it’s not the cause. Not the only one, at least. But the point is that as long as we’re in it, there isn’t a hope in hell of solving them. It’s simply not an option. Only outside the EU’s straitjacket can we even begin to think about fighting progressive politics. British independence is a prerequisite to any kind of challenge to the New Establishment. It’s not sufficient, by any means, but it is necessary.

Is it though? Sam can you not imagine a non-EU Britain (even Scotland) that was just as “progressive” (I hate that term BTW). The likes of the EU are the consequence not the cause. I recall vaguely the Foot-era Labour party wanted out because they wanted to out Stalin Stalin. Hence we kept Maggie. Thank God for small mercies!

For example, Texas (largely because the State Legislature did not have the time) did not impose the “Social Hygiene” (Eugenics) regulations that other States imposed, and as things started to be whispered about in relation to what was going on in the States that had those powers, the Texas State Legislature never did find the time to give the Executive those powers.

Had the Federal government not be restrained (by Constitutional restraints – which still mattered back then) then every State would have had eugenics imposed upon it.

The E.U. can impose basically any regulation it likes – and on all members.

One does not want to be part of a Union that can do that.

“But Paul that is also an argument for States to secede from what the United States has become – with the unlimited powers the Federal government now has”.

Paul, yes it could. I shall reiterate for I’m sure you remember the Foot-era Labour Party better than me. They wanted out so they could build a Soviet. And Texas has always gone it’s own way (sort of) and fair play to ‘em! All I’m trying to say is that if we wish to roll-back the state structures like the EU are not as important as attitudes within the EU. Start with this. Is it because of the EU I can walk down my street and buy Danish bacon or French wine? Some people like to pretend it is. There is so much nonsense talked about the EU on both sides. And If – it was JG I think – is right and I think he is.- they will make life hell for us if we to a Farage. But fundamentally the EU is just another layer of state not different from the others. Why was it not just a free-trade org? Because it was politricks and that never ends. Politicians will tinker with something ’till it is knackered because it is what they do. So I have widgets and you have wodgets so we make a deal and it ends with a handshake and that is it. That is not how politics works. It has to keep on working otherwise what is the point to the pols? And dear Gods you think they wouldn’t keep on tinkering either in or out of the EU?

The operative word being “could”, not “would”, Nick. The point is that this stuff – I agree about “progressive” – is woven into the structure the EU, its very being, in a way that it isn’t in the states themselves. It was created to control the states of Europe so that they can’t follow their own ideas about how a government might work. That’s its purpose. Inside the EU, Foot couldn’t turn Britain into another USSR, which was a lucky escape, but we couldn’t turn it into Hong Kong either.

Monnet and Salter’s idea was to put an end to politics, and replace it with administration. As Paul says, the EU can impose any regulation it likes. What he doesn’t say is that it must. Regulation is what it’s for, not deciding whether there should be regulation in the first place. That ship has already sailed. There will. And that’s the difference between it and regular independent states: it’s not written into the constitution of most states that their “competences” will expand indefinitely. In a very particular sense, the EU is “progressive” or it is nothing.

Of course an independent Britain would still face the danger of these ideas (and yes, Scotland even more so), I don’t deny that, and we’d still have a hard time fighting them. But inside the EU there isn’t a chance.

Counting Cats (CC) was taken to task by several other commenters for being too squeamish and perhaps even morally neutral about who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here. While I don't share CC's reaction to the video, I rejoice in his (her?) existence. What kind of a world would it be if people like CC didn't exist or if they had to hide their views? Who knows, we might all be living in something akin to Somalia.
...
CC's civilized response is precisely why our military is a force for good in the world.